| Abstract: | The Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC Statute)would have been more acceptable to India if it had containedan opt-in provision whereby a state could accept the jurisdictionof the ICC by declaration (possibly for a specified period),and this might be limited to particular conduct or to conductcommitted during a particular period of time. The lack of sucha provision, and the inherent jurisdiction which replaced it,are perceived as representing a violation of the consent ofstates, and thus a threat to sovereignty. India's resistanceto accepting the inherent jurisdiction of the ICC is explained,in part, by anxieties about how investigation, prosecution andcriminal proceedings in the Indian system may be judged by aninternational court. The inclusion of ‘armed conflictnot of an international character’ in defining ‘warcrimes’ in Article 8 ICCSt. constitutes another reasonfor India's concern (that the conflicts that persist in Kashmir,the North-East and as was experienced in Punjab, as well asthe violence of more recent vintage in Gujarat, could be referredto the ICC). Further elements giving rise to India's misgivingsare the fear that the Court might be used with political motives,the power conferred on the Prosecutor to initiate investigationsproprio motu and the role allotted to the Security Council. |
